4 ms·

Debt, the first 5,000 Years (David Graeber) - Learned that most of history has been communist (eg. hunter gatherer societies), shops of the past were run on cre

Debt, the first 5,000 Years (David Graeber) - Learned that most of history has been communist (eg. hunter gatherer societies), shops of the past were run on credit (eg. tally sticks), money/capitalism tended to emerge with the rise of the state, taxing to feed soldiers for war, and that the drive to pay off one's debt fueled a lot of the cruelty of mankind (eg. Hernan Cortez, Casimir). 21 Things they don't tell you about Capitalism, Bad Samaritans (Ha Joon Chang) - Learned that free trade is generally bad for developing countries, countries need to build out high productivity industries to grow their economy in the long term and avoid a balance of payments deficit (unless blessed with oil or something), manufacturing is vital to a country's economy and its service sector, "free markets" are a constantly evolving political definition with numerous inherent double standards, the only reason most of us in first world countries are paid well has nothing to do with our own superior ability (eg. bus driver in India vs. Norway), but due to immigration control and the institutions we inherit. Also looking for more book recommendations, so feel free to send some my way!

afarrell 9y ago
> money/capitalism tended to emerge with the rise of the state, taxing to feed soldiers for war There is actually a musical about the way that the US federal government and financial system were founded in order to be able to provide capital for warfighting.
- selimthegrim 9y ago
  1776?
cgmg 9y ago
> Learned that free trade is generally bad for developing countries The consensus among experts on the matter is that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and welfare, while free trade has a positive effect. There are challenges to be sure, but free trade is most definitely a net positive for developing countries. Countries whose governments prevent their citizens from engaging in international trade tend to be much worse off.
- baddox 9y ago
  I'm curious if the commenter meant "free trade" in the sense it's used by most politicians, which is to say deals between nations involving trade, which is to say effectively the opposite of "freedom of trade."
  - thundergolfer 9y ago
    I read the book a while ago, and the general point was that it is a misconception that capitalistic free trade was a driver of high growth in today's powerful western economies. These countries actually engaged in significant levels of industrial protectionism during key parts of their economic history. I don't think the book was making a point about what is best for developing nations today, just attacking the the idea that laissez-faire capitalism built the US economy. It's quite a good, short book, if you want to get a perspective on capitalism that's neither from a Communist or a university's Business & Commerce faculty.
- RealityNow 9y ago
  Well read "Bad Samaritans" to see why the consensus amongst economists is wrong. There isn't a single first world country that developed under free trade. The US and the UK were highly protectionist with steep tariffs, and it was only after they gained world dominance that they started opening their borders and demanding free trade from everyone else. The economic "miracles" of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan were all highly protectionist, and their now world-renowned industries were heavily subsidized by the government over decades. Toyota took 30 years to make a profit and 60 years to become a dominant player in the auto industry. Had these countries adopted free trade policies, these industries never would have developed due to being unable to compete with foreign competitors, and Korea and Japan would still be third world countries exporting textiles and refined sugar. The developing countries that did adopt free trade policies (at the behest of the IMF/World Bank/WTO) all grew slower than they did before those policies were in place. Latin America's growth rate since the 80s has been a third of what it was prior, in Africa's case I believe it went from like 1-2% to .2% (don't remember the exact numbers). The analogy in Chapter 3 titled "My six-year-old son should get a job" is brilliant. If a child is told to get a job and fend for himself, then he'll likely end up working low-productivity dead-end minimum wage jobs for the rest of his life. However if he's able to focus on his studies, get parental support, go to university, maybe do research for a professor on the side - then this insulation from the free market via parental subsidies will pay off in the long run as the child will end up doing much greater higher productivity work. Similarly, developing countries need to invest in high productivity industries to develop. Highly recommend the book, it's a quick read. I took the same Econ 101 classes where I was taught that free trade is unequivocally good. This book changed my mind, while also helping me realize that much of economics is completely divorced from reality. Even if you ideologically can't let go of the theory that free trade is good, history and the data clearly say otherwise.
PeterisP 9y ago
Coincidentally, "the only reason most of us in first world countries are paid well has nothing to do with our own superior ability (eg. bus driver in India vs. Norway), but due to immigration control and the institutions we inherit" clearly explains why a bus driver in a first world country would/should vote for anyone who promises more immigration control and sticking to the institutions we inherited.

afarrell 9y ago

> money/capitalism tended to emerge with the rise of the state, taxing to feed soldiers for war There is actually a musical about the way that the US federal government and financial system were founded in order to be able to provide capital for warfighting.

selimthegrim 9y ago
1776?

cgmg 9y ago

> Learned that free trade is generally bad for developing countries The consensus among experts on the matter is that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and welfare, while free trade has a positive effect. There are challenges to be sure, but free trade is most definitely a net positive for developing countries. Countries whose governments prevent their citizens from engaging in international trade tend to be much worse off.

baddox 9y ago
I'm curious if the commenter meant "free trade" in the sense it's used by most politicians, which is to say deals between nations involving trade, which is to say effectively the opposite of "freedom of trade."
- thundergolfer 9y ago
  I read the book a while ago, and the general point was that it is a misconception that capitalistic free trade was a driver of high growth in today's powerful western economies. These countries actually engaged in significant levels of industrial protectionism during key parts of their economic history. I don't think the book was making a point about what is best for developing nations today, just attacking the the idea that laissez-faire capitalism built the US economy. It's quite a good, short book, if you want to get a perspective on capitalism that's neither from a Communist or a university's Business & Commerce faculty.
RealityNow 9y ago
Well read "Bad Samaritans" to see why the consensus amongst economists is wrong. There isn't a single first world country that developed under free trade. The US and the UK were highly protectionist with steep tariffs, and it was only after they gained world dominance that they started opening their borders and demanding free trade from everyone else. The economic "miracles" of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan were all highly protectionist, and their now world-renowned industries were heavily subsidized by the government over decades. Toyota took 30 years to make a profit and 60 years to become a dominant player in the auto industry. Had these countries adopted free trade policies, these industries never would have developed due to being unable to compete with foreign competitors, and Korea and Japan would still be third world countries exporting textiles and refined sugar. The developing countries that did adopt free trade policies (at the behest of the IMF/World Bank/WTO) all grew slower than they did before those policies were in place. Latin America's growth rate since the 80s has been a third of what it was prior, in Africa's case I believe it went from like 1-2% to .2% (don't remember the exact numbers). The analogy in Chapter 3 titled "My six-year-old son should get a job" is brilliant. If a child is told to get a job and fend for himself, then he'll likely end up working low-productivity dead-end minimum wage jobs for the rest of his life. However if he's able to focus on his studies, get parental support, go to university, maybe do research for a professor on the side - then this insulation from the free market via parental subsidies will pay off in the long run as the child will end up doing much greater higher productivity work. Similarly, developing countries need to invest in high productivity industries to develop. Highly recommend the book, it's a quick read. I took the same Econ 101 classes where I was taught that free trade is unequivocally good. This book changed my mind, while also helping me realize that much of economics is completely divorced from reality. Even if you ideologically can't let go of the theory that free trade is good, history and the data clearly say otherwise.

PeterisP 9y ago

Coincidentally, "the only reason most of us in first world countries are paid well has nothing to do with our own superior ability (eg. bus driver in India vs. Norway), but due to immigration control and the institutions we inherit" clearly explains why a bus driver in a first world country would/should vote for anyone who promises more immigration control and sticking to the institutions we inherited.